Effectiveness and Safety of iGlarLixi (Insulin Glargine 100 U/mL Plus Lixisenatide) in Type 2 Diabetes According to the Timing of Daily Administration: Data from the REALI Pooled Analysis

INTRODUCTION: iGlarLixi (insulin glargine 100 U/mL plus lixisenatide) has demonstrated glycaemic efficacy and safety in adults with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Per the European Medicines Agency's product label, iGlarLixi should be injected once a day within 1 h prior to a meal, preferably the same meal every day when the most convenient meal has been chosen. It is however unknown whether iGlarLixi administration timing affects glycaemic control and safety, as clinical trial evidence is mainly based on pre-breakfast iGlarLixi administration. Therefore, we assessed the effectiveness and safety of iGlarLixi in clinical practice, according to its administration timing. METHODS: Data were pooled from two prospective observational studies including 1303 European participants with T2DM inadequately controlled on oral antidiabetic drugs with or without basal insulin who initiated iGlarLixi therapy for 24 weeks. Participants were classified into four subgroups based on daily timing of iGlarLixi injection: pre-breakfast (N = 436), pre-lunch (N = 262), pre-dinner (N = 399), and those who switched iGlarLixi injection time during the study (N = 206). RESULTS: No meaningful differences in baseline characteristics were observed between the study groups. Least-squares mean reductions in haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) from baseline to week 24 were substantial in all groups, with the numerically largest decrease observed in the pre-breakfast group (1.57%) compared with the pre-lunch (1.27%), pre-dinner (1.42%), or changed injection time (1.33%) groups. Pre-breakfast iGlarLixi injection also resulted in a numerically greater proportion of participants achieving HbA1c < 7.0% at week 24 (33.7% versus 19.0% for pre-lunch, 25.6% pre-dinner, and 23.2% changed injection time). iGlarLixi was well tolerated across all groups, with low rates of gastrointestinal disorders and hypoglycaemia. Mean body weight decreased similarly in all groups (by 1.3-2.3 kg). CONCLUSION: iGlarLixi was effective and safe regardless of its daily administration time. However, pre-breakfast iGlarLixi injection resulted in a more effective glycaemic control

iGlarLixi (insulin glargine 100 U/ml plus lixisenatide) is effective and well tolerated in people with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes regardless of age: A REALI pooled analysis of prospective real-world data

AIM: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety in routine clinical practice of insulin glargine/lixisenatide (iGlarLixi) in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) according to age. METHODS: Patient-level data were pooled from 1316 adults with T2D inadequately controlled on oral antidiabetic drugs with or without basal insulin who initiated iGlarLixi for 24 weeks. Participants were classified into age subgroups of younger than 65 years (N = 806) and 65 years or older (N = 510). RESULTS: Compared with participants aged younger than 65 years, those aged 65 years or older had a numerically lower mean body mass index (31.6 vs. 32.6 kg/m2 ), a longer median diabetes duration (11.0 vs. 8.0 years), were more likely to receive prior basal insulin (48.4% vs. 43.5%) and had a lower mean HbA1c (8.93% [74.10 mmol/mol] vs. 9.22% [77.28 mmol/mol]). Similar and clinically relevant reductions in HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose from baseline to week 24 of iGlarLixi therapy were observed regardless of age. At 24 weeks, least-squares adjusted mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) change in HbA1c from baseline was -1.55% (-1.65% to -1.44%) in those aged 65 years or older and -1.42% (-1.50% to -1.33%) in those aged younger than 65 years (95% CI: -0.26% to 0.00%; P = .058 between subgroups). Low incidences of gastrointestinal adverse events and hypoglycaemic episodes were reported in both age subgroups. iGlarLixi decreased mean body weight from baseline to week 24 in both subgroups (-1.6 kg in those aged ≥ 65 years and -2.0 kg in those aged < 65 years). CONCLUSIONS: iGlarLixi is effective and well tolerated in both younger and older people with uncontrolled T2D

Glycaemic Control in People with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Switching from Basal Insulin to Insulin Glargine 300 U/ml (Gla-300): Results from the REALI Pooled Database

INTRODUCTION: Using pooled data from the REALI European database, we evaluated the impact of previous basal insulin (BI) type on real-life effectiveness and safety of switching to insulin glargine 300 U/ml (Gla-300) in people with suboptimally controlled type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Patient-level data were pooled from 11 prospective, open-label, 24-week studies. Participants were classified according to the type of prior BI. Of the 4463 participants, 1282 (28.7%) were pre-treated with neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin and 2899 (65.0%) with BI analogues (BIAs), and 282 (6.3%) had undetermined prior BI. RESULTS: There were no meaningful differences in baseline characteristics between subgroups, except for a higher prevalence of diabetic neuropathy in the NPH subgroup (21.6% versus 7.8% with BIAs). Mean ± standard deviation haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) decreased from 8.73 ± 1.15% and 8.35 ± 0.95% at baseline to 7.71 ± 1.09% and 7.82 ± 1.06% at week 24 in the NPH and BIA subgroups, respectively. Least squares (LS) mean change in HbA1c was - 0.85% (95% confidence interval - 0.94 to - 0.77) in NPH subgroup and - 0.70% (- 0.77 to - 0.64) in BIA subgroup, with a LS mean absolute difference between subgroups of 0.16 (0.06-0.26; p = 0.002). Gla-300 mean daily dose was slightly increased at week 24 by 0.07 U/kg/day (approximately 6 U/day) in both subgroups. Incidences of symptomatic and severe hypoglycaemia were low, without body weight change. CONCLUSIONS: Irrespective of previous BI therapy (NPH insulin or BIAs), switching to Gla-300 improved glycaemic control without weight gain and with low symptomatic and severe hypoglycaemia incidences. However, a slightly greater glucose-lowering effectiveness was observed in people pre-treated with NPH insulin

Reduced hypoglycemia risk in type 2 diabetes patients switched to/initiating insulin glargine 300 vs 100 U/ml: A european real-world study

Introduction: Randomized controlled trials and real-world data from the USA have shown similar glycemic control with insulin glargine 300 U/ml (Gla-300) and insulin glargine 100 U/ml (Gla-100) and reduced hypoglycemia risk with Gla-300. This real-world study describes the efficacy and safety of Gla-300 and Gla-100 in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in France, Spain, and Germany. Methods: This retrospective chart review analysis used anonymized data for adults with T2D switching basal insulin analog (BIA) therapy to Gla-300 or Gla-100, or insulin-naïve patients initiating Gla-300 or Gla-100. Outcomes included change from baseline to 6-month follow-up in glycated hemoglobin A1c (A1C), total and severe hypoglycemia incidences and events, insulin dose, and reasons for BIA choice. Results: Six hundred sixty-five physicians (33.8% Spain, 31.7% France, 34.4% Germany) provided chart data for patients switching to Gla-300 (n = 679) or Gla-100 (n = 429) or initiating Gla-300 (n = 719) or Gla-100 (n = 711). After adjustment for baseline characteristics, A1C reductions from baseline were similar for patients switching to Gla-300 or Gla-100 (- 0.87% vs. - 0.93%; p = 0.326) while those switched to Gla-300 vs. Gla-100 had a significantly greater mean reduction in hypoglycemic events (- 1.29 vs. - 0.81 events during 6 months; p = 0.012). Mean insulin doses after titration were 0.43 ± 0.36 and 0.40 ± 0.28 U/kg in Gla-300 and Gla-100 switchers, respectively. Factors that significantly influenced BIA choice included a lower risk of hypoglycemia (for Gla-300) and physician familiarity (for Gla-100). Outcomes for insulin-naïve patients were broadly similar to those of switchers. Conclusions: In this real-world European study, patients with T2D who switched therapy to Gla-300 or Gla-100 had improved glycemic control and reduced hypoglycemia at 6 months, with significant hypoglycemia advantages with Gla-300

Advancing therapy in suboptimally controlled basal insulin-treated type 2 diabetes:Clinical outcomes with iGlarLixi versus premix BIAsp 30 in the SoliMix randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: To directly compare the efficacy and safety of a fixed-ratio combination, of insulin glargine 100 units/mL and the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist lixisenatide (iGlarLixi), with those of a premix insulin analog, biphasic aspart insulin 30 (30% insulin aspart and 70% insulin aspart protamine) (BIAsp 30) as treatment advancement in type 2 diabetes suboptimally controlled on basal insulin plus oral antihyperglycemic drugs (OADs). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In SoliMix, a 26-week, open-label, multicenter study, adults with suboptimally controlled basal insulin–treated type 2 diabetes (HbA(1c) ≥7.5% and ≤10%) were randomized to once-daily iGlarLixi or twice-daily BIAsp 30. Primary efficacy end points were noninferiority in HbA(1c) reduction (margin 0.3%) or superiority in body weight change for iGlarLixi versus BIAsp 30. RESULTS: Both primary efficacy end points were met: after 26 weeks, baseline HbA(1c) (8.6%) was reduced by 1.3% with iGlarLixi and 1.1% with BIAsp 30, meeting noninferiority (least squares [LS] mean difference −0.2% [97.5% CI −0.4, −0.1]; P < 0.001). iGlarLixi was also superior to BIAsp 30 for body weight change (LS mean difference −1.9 kg [95% CI −2.3, −1.4]) and percentage of participants achieving HbA(1c) <7% without weight gain and HbA(1c) <7% without weight gain and without hypoglycemia (all P < 0.001). iGlarLixi was also superior versus BIAsp 30 for HbA(1c) reduction (P < 0.001). Incidence and rates of American Diabetes Association level 1 and 2 hypoglycemia were lower with iGlarLixi versus BIAsp 30. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily iGlarLixi provided better glycemic control with weight benefit and less hypoglycemia than twice-daily premix BIAsp 30. iGlarLixi is a more efficacious, simpler, and well-tolerated alternative to premix BIAsp 30 in suboptimally controlled type 2 diabetes requiring treatment beyond basal insulin plus OAD therapy. VIDEO 1: [Figure: see text] [Figure: see text

Glycaemic control and hypoglycaemia benefits with insulin glargine 300 U/mL extend to people with type 2 diabetes and mild-to-moderate renal impairment

Aim: To investigate the impact of renal function on the safety and efficacy of insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) and insulin glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100). Materials and Methods: A meta-analysis was performed using pooled 6-month data from the EDITION 1, 2 and 3 trials (N = 2496). Eligible participants, aged ≥18 years with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes (T2DM), were randomized to receive once-daily evening injections of Gla-300 or Gla-100. Pooled results were assessed by two renal function subgroups: estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <60 and ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2 . Results: The decrease in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) after 6 months and the proportion of individuals with T2DM achieving HbA1c targets were similar in the Gla-300 and Gla-100 groups, for both renal function subgroups. There was a reduced risk of nocturnal (12:00-5:59 AM) confirmed (≤3.9 mmol/L [≤70 mg/dL]) or severe hypoglycaemia with Gla-300 in both renal function subgroups (eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 : relative risk [RR] 0.76 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.62-0.94] and eGFR ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2 : RR 0.75 [95% CI 0.67-0.85]). For confirmed (≤70 mg/dL [≤3.9 mmol/L]) or severe hypoglycaemia at any time of day (24 hours) the hypoglycaemia risk was lower with Gla-300 vs Gla-100 in both the lower (RR 0.94 [95% CI 0.86-1.03]) and higher (RR 0.90 [95% CI 0.85-0.95]) eGFR subgroups. Conclusions: Gla-300 provided similar glycaemic control to Gla-100, while indicating a reduced overall risk of confirmed (≤3.9 and <3.0 mmol/L [≤70 and <54 mg/dL]) or severe hypoglycaemia, with no significant difference between renal function subgroups